EVEREST ENTERPRISES Vs. NTPC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the Limited Tender, issued on the 17th June, 2002, by respondent No.1 for Annual Maintenance Contract (hereinafter referred to as 'AMC' for specialized upkeep and maintenance of the Noida Township of National Thermal Power Corporation which admittedly is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court as covered within the meaning of the Article 12 being held wholly owned Government undertaking and 100% shares being held by the President of India.

(2.) The writ petitioner avers as under : The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.1 in calling for AMC without issuing any letter or bid documents to the petitioner, who is the existing contracter and has been registered contractor with the respondent No. 1 for the last 8 years. On 1st May, 1994, the petitioner was appointed as a contractor by the respondent No. 1 for fouse-keeping and sanitation continuously working with respondent No.1. On 11th August, 2000, the petitioner was awarded contract for specialized upkeep and maintenance of C&D Type Quarter in NTPC Township at Noida for a period of one year and this contract, was extended on 1st August, 2001. This maintenance contract for C&O Type quarters in NTPC Township NOIDA is the subject matter of the present dispute. Significantly, the contract was for a period of one year extenadable at the sole discretion of NTPC by another one year. It is not in dispute that the contract of the petitioner was extended on 1st of August, 2001. The petitioner has contended that it has been Kept out of the tender process for the future tenders issued on 17th June, 2002 without any notice or cause and thus has been discriminated against. On coming to know that the petitioner was wrongly excluded from the tender process, a representation was made by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 by a letter dated 25th July, 2002 which demonstrated the malice and the hostile and arbitrary treatment'to the petitioner by some senior officers.

(3.) By way of illustration of the bias of the respondent, the petitioner submitted that tenders were earlier invited on 19th July, 2001 for the maintenance contract for PMI sector 16 A NOIDA and the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder but even then the petitioner bid did not find favour with the respondent. This bid was therefore not finalized and again a limited tender was invited on 1st of March, 2002 and the petitioner's bid for PMI was still the lowest and yet against the bid was cancelled and the contract was awarded to Sulabh International which had not even submitted its bid. The Sulabh International was granted the contract at a price of Rs.55,024/- per month as against the petitioner's quotation of Rs. 25,997/- per month which was not found acceptable. It was further submitted that the petitioner's work had been satisfactory and no adverse comment had been made by respondent against it nor any show cause notice has been issued by the respondent No.1, Corporation against the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner who is the existing contractor, figuring on the approved tenderers list, could not have been excluded from the Limited Tender dated 17th June, 2002. The petitioner's case is that the tenders were invited from approved vendors and the petitioner was working as an approved vendor and thus respondent No.1 wrongly denied the bid documents to the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner dated 25th July 2002 which complained against the unfair treatment awarded to it, not having been replied to and the petitioner having coming to know of the awarding of the contract on 1st august, 2002 it approached this Court by serving an advance copy on the respondent on 30th July, 2002. Notice in the writ petition was issued on 6th august, 2002 and order of status quo was passed. The writ petition was heard on 8th august, 2002 and judgement was reserved.